Diversity in the future of business education

WALKING around the halls of our business school, I found myself reflecting about our ongoing quality assurance initiatives. Like many institutions worldwide, we're engaged in various accreditation and standardization processes, each promising to elevate our educational offerings to internationally recognized levels. Yet, a question keeps surfacing: how do we build quality through meeting international standards while nurturing our authentic institutional

identity?

This tension between standardization and authenticity isn't unique to our institution. In the 2019 article by Chedrawi, Howayeck, and Tarhini titled "CSR and legitimacy in higher education accreditation programs, an isomorphic approach of Lebanese business schools, " published in Quality Assurance in Education, the authors introduce the concept of accreditation serving as "temporary isomorphic legitimacy tool" for business schools seeking to establish their credibility while developing their distinctive institutional identity. This temporary isomorphism is the tendency for institutions to initially adopt standardized practices and structures as they build legitimacy, before eventually finding their unique voice. This pattern fascinates me, particularly because I've observed a similar journey in our students' development.

There's undeniable value in this initial phase of standardization. Just as young professionals often learn by emulating successful mentors, institutions benefit from adopting proven practices and frameworks. These standards aren't arbitrary - they represent distilled wisdom from decades of educational experience, offering clear benchmarks and a shared language for quality. They provide a foundation of trust, allowing stakeholders to recognize that fundamental educational needs are being met. This standardization phase serves as a form of scaffolding, breaking down complex educational processes into learnable, implementable chunks. When faced with the daunting task of ensuring educational quality, having clear frameworks and benchmarks provides necessary structure and direction. It's a phase marked by learning, observation, and careful implementation of best practices.

Yet there comes a point - both for institutions and individuals - when following the template stops being enough. This is perhaps the most challenging phase of institutional development, marked by a certain discomfort that shouldn't be rushed past. It's the moment when an institution begins to question whether standard practices fully align with its unique context, mission, and values. I've witnessed this same tension in our students and in our institutional experiences - that crucial point when we realize that merely following the rulebook won't lead to distinctive success.

The risk, of course, is getting stuck in permanent isomorphism - never moving beyond the safety of established patterns. Quality assurance shouldn't be about creating identical institutions, but rather about ensuring each institution can deliver excellence in its own authentic way. The challenge lies in creating an environment where this transition feels safe and supported, where questioning and adaptation are seen as signs of maturity rather than resistance. 

What's particularly interesting is how robust quality standards can actually enable distinctiveness rather than suppress it. Much like how mastering the fundamentals of any discipline eventually enables creativity, strong institutional foundations create the confidence to express unique character. The most impressive institutions I've encountered aren't those that simply meet all standards perfectly, but those that have used those standards as a launching pad for distinctive excellence.

Leadership plays a crucial role in this journey. It requires the wisdom to recognize when an institution is ready to move beyond pure imitation, the courage to encourage thoughtful deviation from standard practices, and the skill to maintain quality while nurturing unique institutional character.

The ultimate goal isn't to abandon standards - far from it. Rather, it's to reach a state where standards serve as enabling constraints, providing the structure within which institutional creativity can flourish. I''m increasingly convinced that the key lies in embracing both standards and soul - understanding that they're not opposing forces but complementary elements of institutional excellence. The temporary nature of initial isomorphism isn't a flaw in the system but a feature, providing the secure base from which authentic institutional character can emerge.

The future of business education lies not in perfect uniformity, but in high-quality diversity - institutions that maintain excellent standards while expressing distinctive identities. It;'s a vision worth pursuing, even if the path requires careful navigation of the tension between standardization and authenticity. After all, isn't this journey toward authentic excellence exactly what we hope to inspire in our students?